In its announcement of OS X 10.8 Mountain Lion on Thursday, Apple failed to mention that a handful of Macs that will be cut from the fold when the next generation operating system debuts this summer due to end of support for older Intel integrated graphics chipsets.

Certain Macs made from 2006 to 2008 that incorporate Intel's GMA 950 and GMA X3100 integrated graphics processors will not be supported () by Mountain Lion, which means that Apple's newest version of OS X marks the end of the software road for owners of these computers, according to French Apple blog MacGeneration.

Integrated graphics chipsets are used in power-critical applications like laptops that have run times limited to the size of their batteries. Some Apple laptops, and subsequently Mac mini and iMac models that use a reworked mobile logic board, incorporate the integrated graphics model to be more energy efficient. The trade off for this efficiency is processing power, as integrated solutions are not as fast as discrete power-hungry GPU's, and is most likely the reason why OS X 10.8 Mountain Lion no longer supports older models.

The cycle of ending support for previous generation machines is an inevitability with the ever evolving world of computing as new operating systems and software are simply too complex to run optimally on older hardware.

For example, when Mac OS X 10.7 Lion was released in July of 2011, the AirDrop file sharing feature was limited to modern machines due to WiFi hardware requirements.

Dropping support for 4+ year old machines isn't fragmentation. Fragmentation is when the device you just got can't run the new OS to be released next month, or which was even released before you purchased. This is called keeping the OS lean and efficient by not having to support a million older configurations. IMO dropping new OS support for anything beyond 3 years is fair game and acceptable.

I'm finding it hard to believe they'll drop support for machines because of integrated graphics support. A 2008 Air is not so old in Mac terms. Can someone translate for me from the original links where Apple said this is a certainty?

Same old story with Apple. If its over 3 years old they don't care, its time you spent some money with them again.

The only thing that's the "same old story" here is this comment.

Every time a new OS or program comes out and old hardware is deprecated we get people like this saying that it's a scam or that it has to do with politics or money and that they really could support the older hardware if they wanted to.

The fact is though, I don't think there is a single documented case of this actually being true despite it being said every single time. It always turns out that there is a valid hardware-related reason for not supporting the old hardware, but that never stops folks like this from making this same "fantasy gripe" every single time.

This information conflicts with the release notes which states that in order to install ML the Mac must run 64 bit kernel which excludes several other models including some Mac Pros

Did they update EFI on those Macs?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jamesmcd

I'm beginning to worry about my 2011 Sandy Bridge MacBook Pro 17"! I wonder if it will be supported by 10.9.....

They are moving to a yearly update cycle. Do you really think that your 2011 MBP will not support Mac OS X in 2013?

Quote:

Originally Posted by timgriff84

Same old story with Apple. If its over 3 years old they don't care, its time you spent some money with them again.

You mean a couple 4yo Macs't, several 5yo Mac, most 6yo Macs, and no 7yo Macs will get the update? That sounds right to me and reasonable. It's longer than iOS gets updated for and without any feature loses. And it's certainly better than new Android and Windows updates.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

They have been remarkably upgradable up to this point. Macs normally can run approximately 3-4 major revisions, which is way better than almost any Windows based computer.

I have a PC from 2003 that I was able to install Windows 7 (32bit) onto. Arguably, it was a high-end machine. Also arguably, Apple makes ONLY high-end machines, correct? Originally, the computer had XP. (I didn't dare put Vista on the thing!) Apple is cutting off computers pretty much prior to 2006.

Since 1998, there have been only four major Windows OS upgrades for consumers (not counting ME, since it was a downgrade.) Mac has had 9 major OS upgrades (9, 10.0, .1, .2, .3, .4 but not counting the PPC to Intel transition, .5, .6, .7) since that time. Just for comparison.

Every time a new OS or program comes out and old hardware is deprecated we get people like this saying that it's a scam or that it has to do with politics or money and that they really could support the older hardware if they wanted to.

The fact is though, I don't think there is a single documented case of this actually being true despite it being said every single time. It always turns out that there is a valid hardware-related reason for not supporting the old hardware, but that never stops folks like this from making this same "fantasy gripe" every single time.

well the really cool thing is that even all the old plastic black and white (albeit intel) MacBooks still work just great, with either leopard or snow leopard, so why would i even want to upgrade those. A 4 year cycle for your main PC in a business that evolves this quickly is really good.

To all those that would have apple hinder new methods and performance just so it can run on your old hardware, please write to the RIAA and demand all turntable manufacturers put back 78RPM

They have been remarkably upgradable up to this point. Macs normally can run approximately 3-4 major revisions, which is way better than almost any Windows based computer.

Agreed... My White 24" iMac I got in April 2006 with Intel Inside came with OS 10.4 and I upgraded to 10.5 then 10.6, and maybe I could do 10.7 but haven't checked into it. However, it is time for me to upgrade and this summer seems like the perfect time to do it!

Anybody heard anything of the next iMacs?
/
/
/

Ten years ago, we had Steve Jobs, Bob Hope and Johnny Cash. Today we have no Jobs, no Hope and no Cash.

I'm finding it hard to believe they'll drop support for machines because of integrated graphics support. A 2008 Air is not so old in Mac terms. Can someone translate for me from the original links where Apple said this is a certainty?

They are referring only to the original Air. The late 2008 Air will still run Mountain Lion. Remember, the original Air had the very slow Intel graphics and will be 4.5 years old by the time Mountain Lion is released. The late-2008 had NVIDIA graphics and was a much-improved machine.

I have a PC from 2003 that I was able to install Windows 7 (32bit) onto. Arguably, it was a high-end machine. Also arguably, Apple makes ONLY high-end machines, correct? Originally, the computer had XP. (I didn't dare put Vista on the thing!) Apple is cutting off computers pretty much prior to 2006.

Since 1998, there have been only four major Windows OS upgrades for consumers (not counting ME, since it was a downgrade.) Mac has had 9 major OS upgrades (9, 10.0, .1, .2, .3, .4 but not counting the PPC to Intel transition, .5, .6, .7) since that time. Just for comparison.

<end troll>

Windows 95
Win 98 was released in May
Win 2000
Win XP
Win Vista
Win 7

Win 7 may be the exception and Windows experts may be the exception, but in general Windows machines never get upgraded due to many different reasons.

Does kernel_task say 64 bit in Activity Monitor. There is a difference between kernel and applications. It has to do with the boot rom. I think the Mac Pro 1,1 boots 32 bit but runs 64 bit applications.

The fact is though, I don't think there is a single documented case of this actually being true despite it being said every single time. It always turns out that there is a valid hardware-related reason for not supporting the old hardware, but that never stops folks like this from making this same "fantasy gripe" every single time.

That's a flat out lie. Siri was successfully ported to work on older iPhones, and yet Apple shut them down just this week.

They are referring only to the original Air. The late 2008 Air will still run Mountain Lion. Remember, the original Air had the very slow Intel graphics and will be 4.5 years old by the time Mountain Lion is released. The late-2008 had NVIDIA graphics and was a much-improved machine.

If they kill support for the integrated won't this also impact the low power modes on Automatic Graphics Switching on the MBPs?

Dropping support for 4+ year old machines isn't fragmentation. Fragmentation is when the device you just got can't run the new OS to be released next month, or which was even released before you purchased. This is called keeping the OS lean and efficient by not having to support a million older configurations. IMO dropping new OS support for anything beyond 3 years is fair game and acceptable.

I don't think you can so easily dismiss the fragmentation argument, I think it's one of the biggest problems facing Apple right now and in the near future, in relation to OS X. I agree they can't be expected to support every new feature on every old device, within reason, and I'm not sure where that line is.

BUT, the fact remains that Lion adoption has plateaued at around 32% (http://bit.ly/ADPFIw), which isn't that great, IMO, considering how long it's been out. For whatever reason... don't like it, don't need it, older hardware, new high-bandwidth upgrade mechanism, w/e. I worry the fragmentation will get even worse with Mountain Lion, with only mostly current Lion users adopting, and not necessarily all of them.

The fact is, Apple builds beautiful high-quality hardware. It's been one of its greatest selling points, but it becomes moot if the software outgrows the hardware too fast and people are left with beautiful high-quality door stops (OK, that's not fair, those old machines will still work, just not with what is billed as Apple's future... iCloud).

All of a sudden the advantage of the interoperability of all of my Apple devices becomes irrelevant because only three of the current eight Apple devices I use can upgrade to iOS 5 or Lion.

I truly wonder how many of these decisions are based on technical limitations of old hardware, the time and resources required to develop for and support older devices, or the drive to coerce people to buy new hardware.

Does kernel_task say 64 bit in Activity Monitor. There is a difference between kernel and applications. It has to do with the boot rom. I think the Mac Pro 1,1 boots 32 bit but runs 64 bit applications.

There are a number of Macintosh models that are able to run Lion but do not run the kernel in 64bit mode. I believe it's a combination of the motherboard chipset limitations at the time, along with the fact that most of those models are using a 32bit version of the UEFI firmware. Looking at the list, all the newer models from the last 3 years have 64bit versions of the UEFI firmware installed. These look to be the models cut from Mountain Lion support.

That's a flat out lie. Siri was successfully ported to work on older iPhones, and yet Apple shut them down just this week.

With Apple, running is not the same as running well. I think the noise canceling microphones is one thing that makes it work better on 4S. I have not tested it but I suspect there may be some unacceptable lag in response time as well. They sometimes err in that regard too like when they allowed iOS 4 to run on 3G hardware. It ran crappy.

Every time a new OS or program comes out and old hardware is deprecated we get people like this saying that it's a scam or that it has to do with politics or money and that they really could support the older hardware if they wanted to.

The fact is though, I don't think there is a single documented case of this actually being true despite it being said every single time. It always turns out that there is a valid hardware-related reason for not supporting the old hardware, but that never stops folks like this from making this same "fantasy gripe" every single time.

All we have to do is look at the vintage of the Intel graphics integrated chip series. The 950 and 3100 series are not good enough anymore. Intel was never really great in graphic anyway. It is truly no surprise the new Mountain Lion OS is not supporting ancient hardware.